Reversal of Fortunes: The U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding

Click here to download the Analysis

Overview

The U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a highly flawed arrangement that falls far short of President Donald Trump’s original war objectives and enshrines significant American strategic defeats following many major U.S.-Israeli operational successes in 38 days of armed combat in Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion. It has contributed to an incredible reversal of fortunes where Iran now appears victorious and feels emboldened, the United States desperate and weak, and Israel on the defensive.

As such, the MOU looks like another in a long line of unhappy attempts by American administrations to use upfront inducements, rather than sustained leverage, pressure, and resolve, to persuade the radical Islamic regime in Tehran to accommodate U.S. interests—driven in no small measure by Trump’s interest to get the Strait of Hormuz opened and oil exports flowing ahead of American midterm elections on November 3.

And inducements there are a plenty. The MOU immediately grants waivers to allow Iran to sell oil and, apparently, to repatriate all revenues earned from there to Iran until such time as all U.S. sanctions are removed permanently. It seems to gift Iran expansive access to possibly billions of dollars in frozen assets even before an acceptable final deal addressing Iran’s nuclear program is agreed. And, if such a deal is reached, it pledges to formally end all U.S. and multilateral sanctions on Iran, including those imposed on its missile program, support for terrorism, and human rights abuses. Contradicting the president’s stated ambitions in launching Operation Epic Fury, the United States implicitly forswears in the deal any future efforts to assist the Iranian people in building a better future.

This amounts to a far-reaching accommodation of Iranian demands and a substantial dismantling of the framework of U.S. pressure against Tehran that had been built up, by Trump himself, over the last decade, and especially in the last year.

Meanwhile, the MOU imposes no meaningful, permanent, or fully verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program, and it does not address Iran’s missile program or terrorist proxies. Nor does it include any mechanism for ensuring Iranian compliance, or punishing violations, of the MOU’s terms. This is deeply problematic because mendacity infuses the very core of the Iranian regime—underscored by the immediate attacks by its proxy, Hezbollah, on Israel, a clear violation of the MOU’s requirement of an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon as well. By including Lebanon, the MOU concedes Iranian influence in Lebanon to save its terror proxy Hezbollah, threatens Israeli security, trashes prospects for an Israeli-Lebanese peace, and offers Iran an additional lever to manipulate other elements of the MOU.

At least the current deal does not yet oblige the United States to undertake any irreversible actions; it can and should walk away if Iran continues to violate the MOU’s terms or fails to negotiate an acceptable nuclear deal in good faith. Indeed, perhaps the best that can be said about the MOU is that it is not a nuclear deal, and it commits Iran during the duration of the 60-day MOU to the nuclear status quo of no enrichment-related activity.

This whole U.S. effort has exuded weakness and desperation, undercutting America’s position with China and other adversaries, and raising further doubt about American reliability among friends.

The analysis below examines each paragraph of the deal and its implications.

Click here to download the Analysis